Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries.

Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions' effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior-several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people's initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors.

Mental models of the protein shift: Exploring consumers' perceptions of the transition.

The protein transition is one of today's major societal challenges to mitigate climate change. To support lasting consumer engagement, it has been suggested to look into consumers' understanding of the protein transition to identify barriers that go beyond the practical issues of changing one's diet. The current study explored consumers' mental models of how the transition unfolds to examine which factors consumers perceive as important drivers of the transition. With a fixed set of factors and actors identified with a questionnaire, Dutch consumers (N = 214) mapped their mental models. The content and structure of the mental models were analyzed with a focus on how consumers perceive their own role. Animal well-being and environmental concerns were most often included as important drivers. The findings showed a lack of consensus about which actor(s) drive the transition (i.e., none of the actors were included by a majority of the participants). This diffusion of responsibility may be a barrier for consumers to act. Moreover, the relative simplicity of the observed mental models suggests that consumers do not yet employ systems thinking. A systems thinking mindset may help consumers understand how the system behind the transition works and how their individual contributions matter. Two avenues to encourage consumer engagement were identified: 1) emphasizing the responsibility of different actors and what consumers can contribute, and 2) encouraging a systems thinking mindset.

How do people understand the spread of COVID-19 infections? Mapping mental models of factors contributing to the pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the mental models people hold about the COVID-19 pandemic, with a focus on how they understand the factors that drive the spread of COVID-19 and what kind of beliefs are associated with these models. DESIGN: In a series of three studies (total N = 461), we asked participants to identify factors that are relevant for COVID-19 proliferation (Study 1a), rate the importance of factors (Study 1 b), and create a mental model of how these factors relate to virus spread by employing a validated tool for mental model elicitation (Study 2). Main outcome measures: inclusion and centrality of factors in mental models of COVID-19 infection spread. RESULTS: Mitigation measures issued by government, adherence to measures, and virus characteristics were most strongly represented in participants' mental models. Participants who perceived measures as appropriate or who experienced more control and more worry over the spread of the virus created more complex models compared to participants who were less satisfied with measures or who felt lower control and less worry. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that people are able to create sensible mental models of virus transmission but may appreciate transparent communication to comprehend the bigger picture behind the governmental mitigation strategy.

Evaluating the Application of the Mental Model Mapping Tool (M-Tool).

Mental models influence how individuals think and act in relation to their external environment and have been identified as leverage points to address sustainability challenges. Given the importance of mental models, a new tool to assess mental models has been developed: the Mental Model Mapping Tool (M-Tool). M-Tool was designed to have a standardized format and to be user-friendly for low literacy populations, using pictograms and audio instructions. In this paper, we evaluate M-Tool's application in two studies with Tanzanian fishers. In Study 1, we investigated M-tool's convergent validity compared to standard interviewing methods (n = 30). Study 2 investigated M-Tool's construct validity by relating mental model complexity to participants' education level (n = 185), a relationship that has been well established. The findings show that (1) mental models produced with M-Tool are more complex than mental models obtained through interviewing techniques; (2) model composition is similar across the two methods; and (3) participants with higher levels of education tend to produce more complex mental models with M-Tool than participants with lower levels of education, in line with previous research. These findings suggest that M-Tool can successfully capture mental models among diverse participants. This tool offers researchers and practitioners an instrument to map and compare perceptions of (conservation) challenges across groups.